Hi Guys,
Below are some notes from tuesday discussion session at FEISGILTT. We
welcome you thoguhts on some of these issues.
Kind Regards,
Dave
FEISGILTT: Day two discussion
12 June 2013
CMS Interoperability Session
Presentations:
Â§David Lewis: CMS Interoperability Overview: identifies challenges
Â§Bryan Schnabel (Tektronix): Integrating XLIFF into Drupal for complex
enterprise multilingual web content
Â§JesÃºs Torres Del Rey, Experience in CMs based localisation with Joomla
Â§David Filip: CMS-LION/SOLAS: CMS-XLIFF roundtrip workflow
CMS Interoperability Issues:
The following issues were discussed:
1.Post localisation changes: how to deal with annotation or changes to
content after it can completed a localisation roundtrip, e.g. arising
from quality review or feedback from content consumers or content
strategy managers
2.In general, they are see as complementary, and are so by design. We
need to identify overlaps and overlaps between XLIFF and ITS:
a.Overlap in translate/protect, term annotation
b.XLIFF has competences in the following areas not addressed in ITS:
i.segmentation/extraction,
ii.bitext exchange and management
iii.TM leverage
3.Similarly need to ITS competences not addressed by XLIFF.
4.Source segmentation and immutability/changability of segments and
their identifiers. Need to articulate the difference between XLIFF (1.2
and 2.0) segmentation structure; xml:tm segementation structuring and
NIF URL recipes
5.Enriching the target content, with meta-data, e.g. from XLIFF or ITS
6.Key issue is persuading content creators to annotate source:
7.Explain how ITS source annotation can help with more consistent
extraction and segmentation, and therefore to leverage and consistency
benefits across (XLIFF-based) localisation workflows.
8.Does it make sense to start promoting ITS to content management
community and then use this as the wedge to promote XLIFF?
9.Need to consider how to leverage the growing interest in HTML5 to
promote ITS (and thereby XLIFF and their mapping)
ITS Session
Discussion focussed on harmonisation/collaboration opportunities.
This was in addition to discussion on Linport-ITS-XLIFF alignment on the
first day, where issues included:
Â§Location of external ITS files in LinPort container
Â§URL conversion on ITS Ref attributed when referencing a resource in the
same container, or another container with a known resource.
Â§What specific external resources mentioned and referenced from ITS
could be included in LinPort
Common processing classifications
Define common processing agent classification. XLIFF already defines:
1.Extract
2.Merge
3.Modify
4.Enrich
ITS doesn't include any such classification in the spec (through this
was discussed during requirements gathering) We should create a table
mapping possible ITS use cases against ther classifications. To be
complete for ITS we should add perhaps two other complementary
classifications:
5.Internationalise
6.Post merge processing (enriching and perhaps annotation stripping)
XLIFF-ITS
Current effort on ITS IG to be finalised.
ITS Module in XLIFF
ABsed on the above mapping an ITS module for XLIFF 2.0 should be developed.
Co-evangelization
There seems good potential in evangelising ITS2.0 and XLIFF2.0 in
concert. Common messages to target at potential adopters, in particular
in localisation clients/content generators and content management
technology sector:
1.What do different ITS/XLIFF features empower specific content
creators/managers to do?
2.What annotation can be automated and how?
3.What are the benefits of these use cases for the clinet localisation
department
4.Promote ITS and XLIFF combination success stories accessible with
usable test cases and examples
5.Identify and integrate with best-in-class HTML5 editors
6.CMS integration in particular:
a.We need to understand why L10n integration is not more of a priority
for CMS vendors
b.Need to understand possible conflicts of interest, e.g.
i.System integrators concerned with loosing work to standards based
solutions
ii.CMS vendors interested in lock-in
7.In general, making the use case accessible for CMS clients is probably
the most direct route to persuading the vendors to include features.
Concretely: collaborate on developing a multilingual content check list
of features that purchasers of CMS could reference. This could provide
drill down to test suited that could be used in procurement processes.
Tie this into a reference implementation that satisfies these features.
8.There is a potential to integrate Brian XLIFF drupal plugin and
Cocomore ITS plugin to provide a single drupal plug-in that could act as
a reference CMS implementation for multilingual CMS procurement checklist.
9.Investigate development of a version of procurement checklist that
could be includedin government procurement guidelineswere adherence to
open standards, use of open srouce and avoidance of lock-in is an
important requirement.
XLIFF Session
David to provide summary